Message from discussion Chinese Alpha?
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr2344838pbc.0.1336045116376;
Thu, 03 May 2012 04:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20100610 Thunderbird/3.0.3
Subject: Re: Chinese Alpha?
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Trace: fx27.am4 1336045115 220.127.116.11 (Thu, 03 May 2012 11:38:35 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:38:35 UTC
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 11:38:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 05/02/12 01:12, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> I don't know what feeds your pipe dreams,
> but the Alpha never had a good track record in power efficiency.
> In fact, its inability to adapt to the needs of embedded devices
> (with the exception of AXPvme, which failed miserably)
> was one reason for its demise.
Sounds like rewriting history ?. I ran alpha machines for a decade
or more and don't remember them being any more power hungry than
equivalent x86 machines of the time, though they were much, much
With shrinks and improved process technology, i'm sure that Alpha
would have been more than competitvve with current designs, just
as ibm power is now for it's intended market.
Wonder how fast the last of the microvaxen would have been with
similar upgrades ?...